Global Portal?

I am creating a portal of possible images to use for each parent record, but am having trouble figuring out how to best create the relationship so the portal records are always available regardless of what the parent record is.

What I am considering doing (hoping I'm missing something) is to create two auto-enter calculations in parent and child tables with the same value (like "1") and set up the relationship on those.

Is there a better way to do this join so all portal records are always visible regardless of which parent record?


So you want all records in the related table ( the images ) to be available to the parent record?

Change the relationship from = to x.

It may be better to make a picker, depending on what you are doing.


You can une the X relationship predicate operator (instead of =), and point that to any non empty field (like your table ID). That would make the portal show all records, regardless of the parent you are on.

If you want a specific set, I would bring the criteria in a global field in your parent record and point it to an indexed field in the child table. If you want the relationship to act as an "OR", you need the global field to hold values separated by carriage returns.

Hopefully I'm being clear enough. Feel free to reply if anything is not working as you want it.



Yep, @jormond gives great advice and is very dedicated to the product.

Once again, I'm blown away with the terrific app I created so powerful and quickly using FileMaker!

Thanks again.

It's hard to beat @jormond to be the first one to answer around here... I'll need to ask him what type of notifications he is using lol...

Hope that never stops you from replying, though. I always appreciate seeing the replies from either/both of you.


Completely agree. Most of the time, it's just a coincidence. I just happen to be looking for something just as this was posted. I'm also open to slowing my replies so it gives others more time to reply. I wouldn't want to stunt other's participation in any way.

That is all good, I just need to work on my "coincidences" a bit better... And make shorter replies :wink:


I always use a calculated c1-field instead of a x-relationship (each table has a field with just =1 as a calculation) In the database relationship graph, it is for me more clear than a x-relationship

1 Like

I agree. That’s what I did initially.. In an enterprise database you would never (intentionally) create a Cartesian product (in FMP, an “x” relationship) with more than just a few rows.